Boehner: Obamacare is law of the land, Ryan not the GOP leader

[Freeper]

jsr (1,919 posts)

Boehner: Obamacare is law of the land, Ryan not the GOP leader


 
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-john-boehner-obamacare-paul-ryan-20121108,0,3036470.story

Boehner: Obamacare is law of the land, Ryan not the GOP leader
By Lisa Mascaro

WASHINGTON – In a wide-ranging interview, House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said raising tax rates is “unacceptable,” vice presidential nominee Paul D. Ryan is not the new leader of the GOP and the reelection of President Obama means the nation’s new healthcare law is “the law of the land.”

Boehner spoke to ABC News’ Diane Sawyer on Thursday, his first post-election interview as the divided Congress prepares to negotiate with the White House over the scheduled year-end tax hikes and spending cuts that economists fear will put the economy back in a recession.

“I’m the most reasonable, responsible person here in Washington,” said Boehner, who is expected to remain speaker in the new House Republican majority. “The president knows it. He knows that he and I can work together. The election’s over. Now it’s time to get to work.” ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021769787

I'm not getting any warm feelings from what Boehner is saying. Looks like he is going to cave. Too bad Ryan isn't the GOP leader.

gordianot (6,137 posts)
1. Gee has it started?

Reasonable Republicans where have they been?

If you idiots think they are reasonable then we are screwed.

[Duke Nukum]

Boehner has always been a problem. He is a DC power elite. Compared to the power he has as Speaker he has done virtually nothing to be a thorn in 0bama's side.

I hope there are enough conservatives for a mutiny.

[Freeper]

Boehner has always been a problem. He is a DC power elite. Compared to the power he has as Speaker he has done virtually nothing to be a thorn in 0bama's side.

I hope there are enough conservatives for a mutiny.

Well considering all the buzz from the GOP seems to be that we need to be more moderate, I seriously doubt there will be much of a mutiny.

[Duke Nukum]

Well considering all the buzz from the GOP seems to be that we need to be more moderate, I seriously doubt there will be much of a mutiny.

That's why I said "I hope" and not "I predict."

[USA4ME]

Well we knew if Dear Leader won Obamacare would stay put.  I agree there's no way to kill it now.  Best anyone can do is to try and modify it so the country dies more slowly.  Welcome to Europe.

.

[Duke Nukum]

Well we knew if Dear Leader won Obamacare would stay put.  I agree there's no way to kill it now.  Best anyone can do is to try and modify it so the country dies more slowly.  Welcome to Europe.

.

States can refuse to set up health care exchanges. That will, at least, protect their businesses from the penalties in ObamaCare.

And it is written into the law. The states have the choice. If the state doesn't set up the exchange the feds will come in and do it but the way the law is written the penalties won't apply. Vicki McKenna and Michael Tanner from the CATO institute on talking about it today and she put up a special podcast here:

http://www.wiba.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=vickimckenna&selected_podcast=vicki_mike_tanner_int_11-08-12_1352410982_5986.mp3

[Ptarmigan]

Boehner is another liberal. Who votes for him? 

[GOBUCKS]

Boehner is another liberal. Who votes for him? 

Boehner's  eigth congressional district in Ohio, north of Cincinnati, is the reddest of the red.

They have not elected a democrat congressman in over 75 years.

If you reject Ohio District 8 as too liberal, good luck, because you're left with a tiny fringe.

[Ptarmigan]

Boehner's  eigth congressional district in Ohio, north of Cincinnati, is the reddest of the red.

They have not elected a democrat congressman in over 75 years.

If you reject Ohio District 8 as too liberal, good luck, because you're left with a tiny fringe.

Didn't know that. Anyways no fan of Boehner.

[Duke Nukum]

I don't really think Boehner is a liberal. Just a Washingtonian elite.

0bamaCare grows power for them so he really doesn't have a conflict with it.

[GOP Congress]

With all due respect, the "Washington Elite" is EXACTLY the immediate problem we have. At THIS point, the ENEMY, if I can use that term not just in the political sense but in the very sense that this country is fast getting away from us, the enemy is the current GOP establishment. For all practical purposes, there is NO democrat who will vote non-socilaist. So they are all the ultimate enemy. But before we can EVEN engage them, we have to overcome the RINO's.

Let me be very clear. If we had a unified Republican - Tea Party, with RINO's out of the picture, the Democrats would not stand a chance. We all know that; every real conservative knows that, and every libertarian who understands the need for beating a common enemy knows that. But let's look at the tape: The biggest problem is we've let the Democrat - RINO coalition define our candidates, our positions, and our values to promote. This is key.

To that end, I have to now separate shades of red in defining constituencies and districts. Even though Boehner's district is the "reddest of the red," the representative ELECTED by that district is not even CLOSE to being a solid, all-weather conservative. A REAL conservative wouldn't sound like a beaten puppy with Diane Sawyer. I would be ashamed to be in the district who voted for Boehner in the primary as MY representative, to be blunt, and worse, to be the Speaker.

Let's put it another way: Say the Speaker was a Democrat, and you were voting in the general election: Would you vote for the Republican or the Democrat? There would be no QUESTION whom you would vote for! Yet, in the Primary, most of his constituents wouldn't think TWICE about voting for him over someone else, someone whom could be more conservative with Tea Party principles.

Conclusion: I'll be blunt: the election cost this country about 20 years, MINIMUM, for a conventional political recovery from the effects of Obamacare, and that's only if we get through the next four years without a major catastrophe or military attack. At this point, I cannot ponder more traumatic events; knowing they are far more likely to occur with Obama than they would have with Romney.  But RIGHT NOW, the IMMEDIATE hurdle is to get past the RINO's. And at this point, with Obama as the president, RINO's are our most immediate enemy. I wish I were exaggerating, but at this point there is no more room for political games.

[USA4ME]

States can refuse to set up health care exchanges. That will, at least, protect their businesses from the penalties in ObamaCare.

And it is written into the law. The states have the choice. If the state doesn't set up the exchange the feds will come in and do it but the way the law is written the penalties won't apply. Vicki McKenna and Michael Tanner from the CATO institute on talking about it today and she put up a special podcast here:

http://www.wiba.com/cc-common/podcast/single_page.html?podcast=vickimckenna&selected_podcast=vicki_mike_tanner_int_11-08-12_1352410982_5986.mp3

Thanks for the info.

Here in NC, Republicans hold the State gov't, so I don't know if they'll set up an exchange or not.  If they don't like you said the Fed steps in.  I do expect the Insurance companies to start flooding the market after Jan 2014 with all sorts of health insurance products.  My concern is do you really want to buy into the first wave of what's being offered?  I guess I'll just have to look and see, but I'm going to have to move my healthcare coverage from the company I'm with to another by next summer, so it's something I'm keeping an eye on.

.

[jukin]

Boehner has the trump of just letting all the Bush rates go up. It would kill 0bama and let the entire USA have a gut check. Let sequestration happen. I can guarantee you if it does not, there will be NO spending cuts, NONE.

I wish that Boehner was playing  an advanced game but I don't think he is. The election was not that bad. Obama got 10 million fewer votes. If he sells us down the river, the party will split. He will not be the Speaker. Half the problem of Tuesday was not dancing more with the Tea Party.

I know Boehner was for the 0taxcare because he could have defunded implementation it in 2011. He didn't.

[formerlurker]

With all due respect, the "Washington Elite" is EXACTLY the immediate problem we have. At THIS point, the ENEMY, if I can use that term not just in the political sense but in the very sense that this country is fast getting away from us, the enemy is the current GOP establishment. For all practical purposes, there is NO democrat who will vote non-socilaist. So they are all the ultimate enemy. But before we can EVEN engage them, we have to overcome the RINO's.

Let me be very clear. If we had a unified Republican - Tea Party, with RINO's out of the picture, the Democrats would not stand a chance. We all know that; every real conservative knows that, and every libertarian who understands the need for beating a common enemy knows that. But let's look at the tape: The biggest problem is we've let the Democrat - RINO coalition define our candidates, our positions, and our values to promote. This is key.

To that end, I have to now separate shades of red in defining constituencies and districts. Even though Boehner's district is the "reddest of the red," the representative ELECTED by that district is not even CLOSE to being a solid, all-weather conservative. A REAL conservative wouldn't sound like a beaten puppy with Diane Sawyer. I would be ashamed to be in the district who voted for Boehner in the primary as MY representative, to be blunt, and worse, to be the Speaker.

Let's put it another way: Say the Speaker was a Democrat, and you were voting in the general election: Would you vote for the Republican or the Democrat? There would be no QUESTION whom you would vote for! Yet, in the Primary, most of his constituents wouldn't think TWICE about voting for him over someone else, someone whom could be more conservative with Tea Party principles.

Conclusion: I'll be blunt: the election cost this country about 20 years, MINIMUM, for a conventional political recovery from the effects of Obamacare, and that's only if we get through the next four years without a major catastrophe or military attack. At this point, I cannot ponder more traumatic events; knowing they are far more likely to occur with Obama than they would have with Romney.  But RIGHT NOW, the IMMEDIATE hurdle is to get past the RINO's. And at this point, with Obama as the president, RINO's are our most immediate enemy. I wish I were exaggerating, but at this point there is no more room for political games.

If that was possible it already would have been achieved.  

The country elected a socialist because the RINO wasn't conservative enough?   Does that make ANY sense at all?

This whole GOP establishment talk really makes me laugh out loud.  Come one already.   The "establishment" has been in place since the country was founded (worse so then).  

I'll be more blunt:  Candidates win because their campaigns BUST THEIR ASSES.  Period.   End of freakin sentence.    You may not like the means to which they reach the end (union manipulation, PAC unsavory behavior, control of media), but at the end of the very long campaign season THEY WORKED HARDER.    

You want your extreme right wing candidate to win - then get busy, and when I say get busy I mean you have to do more than write posts on conservative websites.    Draw up a winning blueprint and get to work.  You have two years for the midterms and four for the prize.

Anything else is just blowhard nonsense.

[formerlurker]

...and for the record I want to point out that I am heavily involved in GOP politics in my state - the RINO state.   We aren't whining about the unions and media here.  We are rolling up our sleeves and looking to do a complete overhaul to way we do things, the biggest factor in that being MORE EXTREMELY HARD WORK.

I am a good Republican who busts her ass for her party.   You want change?  Then get off the computer, join your local town/city Republican committees and GET BUSY!

[formerlurker]

One last thing before I jump off the soapbox - this "they" mentality I never could understand... "they" push their RINO candidates on us, "they" set the platform.... when you realize that "they" is actually US, then perhaps you will understand you can effect tremendous change.   Moving mountains starts with removing the stones at the foothills -- join your local Republican committee.  Your help is needed to start moving those stones.

[franksolich]

for formerlurker:

[Wineslob]

for formerlurker:

+1

Very, very well said.

[BigTex]

If that was possible it already would have been achieved.   

The country elected a socialist because the RINO wasn't conservative enough?   Does that make ANY sense at all?

This whole GOP establishment talk really makes me laugh out loud.  Come one already.   The "establishment" has been in place since the country was founded (worse so then).   

I'll be more blunt:  Candidates win because their campaigns BUST THEIR ASSES.  Period.   End of freakin sentence.    You may not like the means to which they reach the end (union manipulation, PAC unsavory behavior, control of media), but at the end of the very long campaign season THEY WORKED HARDER.     

You want your extreme right wing candidate to win - then get busy, and when I say get busy I mean you have to do more than write posts on conservative websites.    Draw up a winning blueprint and get to work.  You have two years for the midterms and four for the prize.

Anything else is just blowhard nonsense.

Couldnt agree more

[GOP Congress]

If that was possible it already would have been achieved.  

The country elected a socialist because the RINO wasn't conservative enough?   Does that make ANY sense at all?

This whole GOP establishment talk really makes me laugh out loud.  Come one already.   The "establishment" has been in place since the country was founded (worse so then).  

I'll be more blunt:  Candidates win because their campaigns BUST THEIR ASSES.  Period.   End of freakin sentence.    You may not like the means to which they reach the end (union manipulation, PAC unsavory behavior, control of media), but at the end of the very long campaign season THEY WORKED HARDER.    

You want your extreme right wing candidate to win - then get busy, and when I say get busy I mean you have to do more than write posts on conservative websites.    Draw up a winning blueprint and get to work.  You have two years for the midterms and four for the prize.

Anything else is just blowhard nonsense.

I admire your contributions and your analysis about hard work. But using the term "extreme right wing" is suspect, if downright non-credible. So let me spell it out.

I will never, NEVER, compromise my own principles of fiscal responsibility, free trade, and leaning toward self-governance. That is not a line in the sand, that is a steel-reinforced 10-foot thick concrete wall with triple concertina wire. There can be no "give and take" there.

Now, we may have legitimate arguments about the social issues, such as religion, sexual orientation, and whatnot. Fine. I do admit there is a lot of differences about how we go about this. As it was, I busted my butt for Mitt Romney just like most here. I worked just as hard to get him elected as I would if the clone of Ronald Reagan were running. I made calls to PA and OH just like the next guy. Now, I was more comfortable with Mitt than some of the other conservatives because I was banking on Mitt's BUSINESS ideas, and not his GOVERNMENT actions as governor in MA. In the end, it doesn't matter, we lost, so we have to reassess.

Our system, for better or for worse, is a two-party system. If you aren't for either party, then you are not part of the battle. So if you are a Libertarian, and voted for your candidate just because both the D and the R were not Libertarian enough, then mathematically speaking, you just gave EACH candidate half a vote apiece. This is key.

I think most of us can agree: The Democratic Party is NOT a political party that has anything to do with the original intent of how this country was to exist. No, I'm not talking about "only land owning white males can vote" originality, but rather the original intent of pursuing life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (originally "property" or "estate" under John Locke's intent). The Democratic Party would have none of that; though they say it all the time, their actions are quite the opposite, as we all know.

So to that end, the Democratic Party is, for all intents and purposes, the most destructive entity we have in the upcoming years, BARRING a foreign intrusion or attack. Aided and abetted by a compliant Fifth Column mainstream media, who make no bones about it will NEVER be ANYTHING BUT HOSTILE to our PRINCIPLES, we have to now define how we fight. Yes, fight.

And therein lies the problem. We KNOW the Democratic party is the enemy in it current state. That is not an "extemist right wing" rant, that is a STATEMENT OF FACT. So let's not wince words and "rhetoric," but state facts.

As for our IMMEDIATE agenda: now that the election is over, we have to analyze the "team" we are on. As I stated before, we have a two-party system, and that is not going to change, at LEAST not changed from external sources. So if we aren't on one side, the Democrats, that leaves us only one choice, for better or for worse: the Republican party. Ergo, the change must happen, internally, within the Republican party.

So who are the combatants in this internal struggle? Very simple: the Establishment GOP (who have NOT been around since the beginning of the country, thank you very much) who wants to compromise with the Democrats, and the fiscal conservatives. Compounding the issue is the existence of SOCIAL conservatives; compromised NOT because we have some issue differences, but that outside agents (Democrats) fan those flames to PREVENT us from having MEANINGFUL agreements.

So now we have defined our IMMEDIATE new battle: identifying, marginalizing, and either converting or firing the "establishment" GOP. So if we need rhetoric and symbolism to define our new enemy, so be it.

I call the Establishment GOP "Obama Republicans."

Just like "Reagan Democrats" to work with the Left to advance American values (AKA "extreme right wing views"), "Obama Republicans" work to advance socialist views in a way that seems "reasonable." Bullshit. When good compromises with bad, only bad remains. You cannot compromise values, which is what the Obama Republicans do all the time.

The reason I attached Obama's name to the GOP Establishment is simple. It is based on how the media would report the strife. For instance, the media will side with Boehner IF he reaches out to Obama. The media will denounce the fiscal conservatives who want to prevent such compromise. Therefore, you may as well put a big Obama logo on Boehner's forehead in this regard.

I think I speak for most here who are not happy with the current state of the Republican party. As I said, I don't consider the GOP Establishment "traitors" any more, as I don't recognize the "GOP establishment" as anything to do with American values. And if there is some roundabout explanations, I think the bottom line is that, yes, we DO Have a war going on within the "Republican party," but we should understand the entire dynamic, not just static, consequences of how we wage this war. And that's why I simplified it by identifying the Establishment as Obama-recommended GOP hacks.

[BlueStateSaint]

If that was possible it already would have been achieved.  

The country elected a socialist because the RINO wasn't conservative enough?   Does that make ANY sense at all?

This whole GOP establishment talk really makes me laugh out loud.  Come one already.   The "establishment" has been in place since the country was founded (worse so then).  

I'll be more blunt:  Candidates win because their campaigns BUST THEIR ASSES.  Period.   End of freakin sentence.    You may not like the means to which they reach the end (union manipulation, PAC unsavory behavior, control of media), but at the end of the very long campaign season THEY WORKED HARDER.    

You want your extreme right wing candidate to win - then get busy, and when I say get busy I mean you have to do more than write posts on conservative websites.    Draw up a winning blueprint and get to work.  You have two years for the midterms and four for the prize.

Anything else is just blowhard nonsense.

I think I heard Hannity say today that there were 130 Obama field offices in Ohio, and the Romney campaign had 6.  Sorry, guys, but the unemployment rate could be over 30%, and you'd still lose being outnumbered over 21 to 1.

[Lacarnut]

...and for the record I want to point out that I am heavily involved in GOP politics in my state - the RINO state.   We aren't whining about the unions and media here.  We are rolling up our sleeves and looking to do a complete overhaul to way we do things, the biggest factor in that being MORE EXTREMELY HARD WORK.

I am a good Republican who busts her ass for her party.   You want change?  Then get off the computer, join your local town/city Republican committees and GET BUSY!

If I am not mistaken, you were gung ho for Romney. We had quite a few discussions about what a loser I thought he was during the primaries. You are from MA and were defending his social agenda. Got news for you. A Yankee Repub will never win the Presidency. So if you are engaged in another round of sucking wind for a fat slob like Christy or for Sanatorium, you are pissing in the wind.

If Rubio is not our candidate the next time around, you can hang it up. Yankee politicans in the northeast have screwed this country up and I will be damned if I will ever vote for another f...k up RINO or Yankee. Scott Brown got his ass whipped and conservatives are far and few there.

[formerlurker]

If I am not mistaken, you were gung ho for Romney. We had quite a few discussions about what a loser I thought he was during the primaries. You are from MA and were defending his social agenda. Got news for you. A Yankee Repub will never win the Presidency. So if you are engaged in another round of sucking wind for a fat slob like Christy or for Sanatorium, you are pissing in the wind.

If Rubio is not our candidate the next time around, you can hang it up. Yankee politicans in the northeast have screwed this country up and I will be damned if I will ever vote for another f...k up RINO or Yankee. Scott Brown got his ass whipped and conservatives are far and few there.

You would be mistaken.  I defended the nonsense you spewed about him but at that time was undecided who I would be supporting, and hmmm let's go back a week and look at your pro-Romney posts.   So now all of a sudden you are a purist again.   

You'll be damned?   You don't do anything but bitch on a website.   

Brown got beat because the Democratic machine churned out a perfect win for all of their candidates state wide.  They worked their asses off.   You of course wouldn't know anything about that.  You will never get your perfect candidate past the primaries because you won't do the work for them.  All talk - always always always all talk.

[formerlurker]

I admire your contributions and your analysis about hard work. But using the term "extreme right wing" is suspect, if downright non-credible. So let me spell it out.

I will never, NEVER, compromise my own principles of fiscal responsibility, free trade, and leaning toward self-governance. That is not a line in the sand, that is a steel-reinforced 10-foot thick concrete wall with triple concertina wire. There can be no "give and take" there.

Now, we may have legitimate arguments about the social issues, such as religion, sexual orientation, and whatnot. Fine. I do admit there is a lot of differences about how we go about this. As it was, I busted my butt for Mitt Romney just like most here. I worked just as hard to get him elected as I would if the clone of Ronald Reagan were running. I made calls to PA and OH just like the next guy. Now, I was more comfortable with Mitt than some of the other conservatives because I was banking on Mitt's BUSINESS ideas, and not his GOVERNMENT actions as governor in MA. In the end, it doesn't matter, we lost, so we have to reassess.

Our system, for better or for worse, is a two-party system. If you aren't for either party, then you are not part of the battle. So if you are a Libertarian, and voted for your candidate just because both the D and the R were not Libertarian enough, then mathematically speaking, you just gave EACH candidate half a vote apiece. This is key.

I think most of us can agree: The Democratic Party is NOT a political party that has anything to do with the original intent of how this country was to exist. No, I'm not talking about "only land owning white males can vote" originality, but rather the original intent of pursuing life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (originally "property" or "estate" under John Locke's intent). The Democratic Party would have none of that; though they say it all the time, their actions are quite the opposite, as we all know.

So to that end, the Democratic Party is, for all intents and purposes, the most destructive entity we have in the upcoming years, BARRING a foreign intrusion or attack. Aided and abetted by a compliant Fifth Column mainstream media, who make no bones about it will NEVER be ANYTHING BUT HOSTILE to our PRINCIPLES, we have to now define how we fight. Yes, fight.

And therein lies the problem. We KNOW the Democratic party is the enemy in it current state. That is not an "extemist right wing" rant, that is a STATEMENT OF FACT. So let's not wince words and "rhetoric," but state facts.

As for our IMMEDIATE agenda: now that the election is over, we have to analyze the "team" we are on. As I stated before, we have a two-party system, and that is not going to change, at LEAST not changed from external sources. So if we aren't on one side, the Democrats, that leaves us only one choice, for better or for worse: the Republican party. Ergo, the change must happen, internally, within the Republican party.

So who are the combatants in this internal struggle? Very simple: the Establishment GOP (who have NOT been around since the beginning of the country, thank you very much) who wants to compromise with the Democrats, and the fiscal conservatives. Compounding the issue is the existence of SOCIAL conservatives; compromised NOT because we have some issue differences, but that outside agents (Democrats) fan those flames to PREVENT us from having MEANINGFUL agreements.

So now we have defined our IMMEDIATE new battle: identifying, marginalizing, and either converting or firing the "establishment" GOP. So if we need rhetoric and symbolism to define our new enemy, so be it.

I call the Establishment GOP "Obama Republicans."

Just like "Reagan Democrats" to work with the Left to advance American values (AKA "extreme right wing views"), "Obama Republicans" work to advance socialist views in a way that seems "reasonable." Bullshit. When good compromises with bad, only bad remains. You cannot compromise values, which is what the Obama Republicans do all the time.

The reason I attached Obama's name to the GOP Establishment is simple. It is based on how the media would report the strife. For instance, the media will side with Boehner IF he reaches out to Obama. The media will denounce the fiscal conservatives who want to prevent such compromise. Therefore, you may as well put a big Obama logo on Boehner's forehead in this regard.

I think I speak for most here who are not happy with the current state of the Republican party. As I said, I don't consider the GOP Establishment "traitors" any more, as I don't recognize the "GOP establishment" as anything to do with American values. And if there is some roundabout explanations, I think the bottom line is that, yes, we DO Have a war going on within the "Republican party," but we should understand the entire dynamic, not just static, consequences of how we wage this war. And that's why I simplified it by identifying the Establishment as Obama-recommended GOP hacks.

The political system has been around since our country was founded - it was far far more dirty during that time.    Political compromise is the only way to get anything done in a two party system - Reagan fully understood that.    My comments about extreme are for the purists, which you won't find enough of to win many (if any) elections.

Your beliefs are yours to have and hold dear, but until you put the rubber to the pavement it's all words.

You are passionate about something - get busy.  You have a hell of a lot of work to do before midterms.   

[formerlurker]

I think I heard Hannity say today that there were 130 Obama field offices in Ohio, and the Romney campaign had 6.  Sorry, guys, but the unemployment rate could be over 30%, and you'd still lose being outnumbered over 21 to 1.

NRO commented Romney didn't need all those field office because the GOP relied heavily on volunteers - people like you and I who canvassed neighborhoods to get the word out. The GOP thought that was enough.   Clearly it wasn't as you point out so well here.